Are you like, actually intellectually disabled?

Because I’ll be nicer if you are. At least then your idiocy would make sense.

I’m not making any claims about Tuckers relationship with anyone shit for brains. Use your fucking eye balls and rub them on the screen. Use them to take the lights emitted by the screen and convert them to letters and then words in your mind.

Stop arguing with your imagination of what I’m saying.

I’ve not offered an iota of conjecture about Tuckers role with Russia you oblivious illterate. Develop some reading comprehension.

You don’t have the mental faculties to comprehend that understanding someone, their motivations, the strategy doesn’t mean you agree with them.

That makes you illiterate to understanding what it takes to oppose people like Tucker. You are so baby brained you can’t understand words or what they mean. Its something we excuse children for but not full grown adults.

You have obligation to understand those you disagree with, because you can’t offer a resistance to them if you don’t understand them or how they operate. And this pervasive baby brained thinking on the part of liberals is half of why were in this mess. Your all so used to just being consumers, to having everything chewed up and spit into your brain by Rachel Maddow or Ezra Klein, your actual critical thinking skills are anemic.

Also, it’s already done. Not like you are putting the toothpaste back in the tube.

you’re implying

I’m implying that you are a toddler brained Liberal who’s analysis is narrowly focused in a kind of maladaptive reactionary analysis that can’t seem to get further than “Trump bad. Trump Russia. Peepee tape.”

Well maybe we could agree that the shit pigeon has improved his political compass substantially over time.

I mean the guy used to wear a bowtie on live TV. But this goes to support your second statement:

He’s fake as fuck and will go the direction the wind is blowing.

Absolutely. But nothing about being a fake as fuck fraud stops them in their pursuit of power.

I mean maybe you are, but I’m making a critique of the article. The articles second point is immaterial to their premise.

we’re in agreement that plant-based diets are a bigger improvement which, to me, is the more important point.

It seems to you are more concerned with the moral signaling the article is doing, and evaluating the quality of the arguments based on how well they agree with your moral codex. I’m making the point that a plant based diet is immaterial to beef being good, bad, or indifferent.

I think we have different understandings of what the premise is/should be.

I’m taking the authors word for it with regards to their premise. Its the headline is the premsie of the article: “regenerative grazing can’t make beef climate-friendly”, and they make 8 arguments to support that premise. That’s the premise I’m evaluating the article against.

I think it’s unlikely that either of our minds will change on what that premise is in any case

You not having reading comprehension, or not understanding the article or forms of argument is a separate thing. You’re quite literally projecting what you want the premise of the article to be. You had an opportunity to have an informed discussion with someone who literally is a primary source for the contents of these kinds of articles, and you’ve done, whatever this is, with that opportunity.

You should take the time to learn to distinguish between tribalism and moral signposting, and actual argument. And if you aren’t going to make that distinction, expect regular pushback when you confuse these things.

Its possible, but a bank shot like that is not what I think is happening. There is no real value in the bank shot for Tucker. And I don’t think this hurts El Sayed.

What this does is further isolate mainstream media from their influence on politics. Its mainstream media who are opposing El Sayed, not DSA/ the left. As long as DSA/leftists types don’t take the self sabotage bait, there is no real political hegemony that can stand against El Sayed at this point.

Its called “Republicans shit the bed even harder” the second go round. Literally everything in America is worse than its ever been and its a direct consequence of the policies of Trumpism. There’s no messaging your way out of that, just like there was no way for Biden to message their way out of things getting continuously worse under their leadership as well.

Trump and Republicanism are radioactive cancer right now is the signal this is sending.

I think many of us are just priced out of the future of technology. I still haven’t tried VR.

But thats not the argument the article is making. And its still a non-sequiter. If your second point of 8 in an argument is a non-sequiter, it says something about the nature and structure of your argument, and it speaks poorly of your ability to reason and understand your own premise.

Honestly, I would take less issue if it wasn’t their second point. If the article was titled “7 reasons regenerative grazing can’t make beef climate-friendly, and one bonus thing”, it would be better, because at least the other 7 points (agree or disagree) support the premise.

Plant based diets “being good” remains a non-sequiter to their premise, and serves more as a value signal than it does to support their arguments. It would be a strong thing to land on, and the article could have been ended with something like “… and even if these 7 things aren’t enough to convince you, (facts and data) plant based diets are demonstrated to be a (better for the planet) way of doing things”, yada yada. The second point is a moral signpost that might work for you or me, but it doesn’t support their argument.

I mean do you think you are actually convincing any one with these absurd accusations (other than maybe yourself, by shrinking and shrinking the circular nature of your own thinking).

You basically have a toddler level analysis of 2016, and are accusing anyone who has a mature thought as being an “obvious russian bot”. That only works on people who also are decrepit, toddler level thinkers.

So if you’ve gotten down this far into this thread, dear reader, I ask you to consider who you think @UsernameHere@lemmy.world 's rhetoric to operate on. Like, who is it that we think this user is trying to convince with their words? Its obviously not us. And if they aren’t arguing to convince us, who is it they are trying to operate on?

One could say that they are looking to split off “liberals” from the rest of the left with this kind of rhetoric. In this sense, they act as a “wrecker” to any kind of populist, leftist movement. Scratch a “russian bad” liberal, and how deep will we have to go to find a zionist apologist, a blue MAGA’t, someone promoting the least viable, most reprehensible instincts of the Democratic party?

It does beg the question doesn’t it?

Only fake lefties and the supremely politically uneducated are wringing their hands over this.

The premise is “regenerative grazing can’t be made climate friendly”.

Any argument not in support of that premise is a non sequiter. Scenario B being climate friendly has no bearing on scenario A being climate friendly. This is a basic rhetorical mistake the author is making and it’s sloppy.

A and B are cars. The premise that I’m making is that car A won’t get you to Chicago.

If I make the argument that car B is sufficient to get you to Chicago, this has no bearing on my premise.

Vegetarian diets being “better” has no bearing on the sustainability of beef production. A diet of only dark chocolate would be “worse” for the climate than one which consumes beef. It also has no bearing on the sustainability of beef production.

Yes yes yes. Every one who doesn’t agree with with you is a Russian op.

We shouldn’t try to understand our opponents or why their messages seem to resonate with audiences. No, we instead require “Trump bad” as the first test to ensure loyalty to the brand, then ensure the counter party is pure enough in their support for Israel and blue no matter who.

Surely simply demanding loyalty to a brand which has been objectively disloyal to its voters won’t, yet again blow up in Democrats faces.

enough of the right is hungry enough for an opinion that still validates their identity and positionality, I wouldn’t expect Tucker to go away any time soon. there is too much appetite for grift on the right. if Tucker went away, another would slip into that void to fill that gap. the real problem here is that Tucker is actually pretty good at what they do, and in-spite of several institutional attempts to cancel them, they’ve managed to survive.

They, unlike Trump in 2016, aren’t dependent on national media to bring them oxygen. A 2016 Trump could have been stopped if media would have just ignored them. Since that time, media has changed. This generation have their own media enterprise in a media landscape largely not beholden to any kind of outside interests. A self fullfilling windbag. Owens, Fuentes, Carlson, they don’t rely on outside financing and have a pretty fair degree of capture of their audiences.

AI sloppo.

And also “Democrats can never be failures, they can only be failed”.

You might feel that way, but these kinds of non-sequiter only work on people who start from the premise the argument is trying to lead you to. I mean its up to you to decide what your rhetoric is for, who it is meant to work/ operate on. If you are only interested in convincing those whom already agree with you, I guess this works on you (I realize you didnt write the article)

However, as a scientist and one that actively is doing research, working with other researchers, reviewing others research, collecting field data, building and applying large models to better understand the impacts of land use and land cover, you insisting on including an unrelated to the argument non-sequiter doesn’t add to your point; it takes away from it. You can still make your argument without that particular point. And the problem with injecting it, is that it frames you in as being unserious in your argument because “plant based diets being good” has no bearing on the sustainability or lack of sustainability of some other practice. Swap out “beef production” with “dark chocolate” production, and nothing about the non-sequiter’s point actually changes.

This logic is how Trump (the previous Kremlin choice) was elected.

I agree. By refusing to, and failing to understand Trump, and why what Trump was doing was working (or to even acknowledge it was working), Liberals, and Democrats more broadly, set us up for this era of fascism we’re in. Its the fault of those who refused to understand their opponents that these easily beatable buffoons have become pillars of the modern political landscape.

If you read the comment as promoting Tucker Carlson, you lack the ability to read. Choosing to not understand your opponent leaves you vulnerable to them. You represent a vulnerability to our collective ability to stop fascism.